lunes, 8 de noviembre de 2010

Jujuy: Cupo Femenino e Igualdad en la Participación Política



ELA sigue con preocupación el proyecto que se debate en la Legislatura de Jujuy respecto del cupo de mujeres en cargos legislativos.

(Buenos Aires, 1 de noviembre de 2010) - El 27 de mayo de 2010 el Tribunal en lo Contencioso Administrativo de Jujuy resolvió "condenar al Poder Ejecutivo y Legislativo de la provincia para que den cumplimiento con el mandato constitucional del art. 37 último párrafo, y disposición transitoria segunda de la Constitución de la Nación, sancionando y promulgando la ley reglamentaria allí prevista, en el plazo de tres meses, bajo apercibimiento de aplicar sanciones conminatorias". Esta sentencia fue en respuesta a la acción de amparo planteada por un grupo de mujeres y varones de Jujuy, que reclamban las medidas necesarias para hacer efectivos los derechos a una igualitaria participación de las mujeres en los cargos electivos en todo el territorio provincial, estableciendo en las normas que rigen el proceso electoral el sistema denominado de cupos o cuotas.

Mientras que el caso fue apelado y se espera la decisión del Superior Tribunal de Justicia de Jujuy, la Legislatura provincial se prepara para tratar y sancionar una ley de cupo que no cumple con los estándares mínimos necesarios para que la norma garantice de un modo efectivo el respeto por los derechos de las mujeres a participar en la vida política.

Algunas consideraciones sobre por qué el proyecto que está siendo discutido en la comisión de Asuntos Institucionales perjudica a las mujeres

1- Sobre el objetivo de las leyes de cupo femenino: el objetivo de las acciones afirmativas es reducir las consecuencias de la discriminación. Para esto, son diseñadas como herramientas para los grupos histórica y socio-culturalmente desaventajados. Los varones nunca han sido discriminados del ámbito público-estatal, y nunca han sido identificados como un “grupo históricamente desaventajado” para la representación política. El objetivo del cupo femenino es lograr una igualdad real de oportunidades entre varones y mujeres, y para esto, es necesario aplicar transitoriamente reglas desiguales. Por lo tanto, poner el acento en asegurar la alternancia de “los sexos” a secas, para garantizar una pretendida neutralidad en la ley, sólo conduce a resultados desiguales, donde las mujeres se verán perjudicadas en su derecho fundamental a la participación política y al acceso a espacios de decisión.

2- Sobre la confusión entre los mínimos y los máximos: el porcentaje del 30% establecido en el Código Electoral Nacional ha sido interpretado en reiteradas oportunidades por la jurisprudencia (Juzgados Electorales, Cámara Nacional Electoral, Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación), por instancias de solución de controversias como la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos y por el Decreto Reglamentario de la ley del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, como un mínimo o piso, y no como un máximo a aspirar o techo. No se trata de garantizar la presencia de una mujer candidata cada tres, sino que se trata de garantizar que como mínimo haya una mujer candidata cada tres posiciones. La inclusión de la frase “con posibilidades reales de ser electas” en el texto de la ley vigente a nivel nacional no debiera estar en discusión luego de las interpretaciones jurisprudenciales de los más altos organismos de nuestro país. Otra vez, construir una norma “neutral” que busque alternar los sexos en las listas de candidatos con estos pisos, entendidos en realidad como un techo, perjudica a las mujeres.

3- Sobre lo que la realidad política nos indica: aun cuando por primera vez y en forma excepcional la Cámara de Diputados jujeña tiene actualmente un 30% de mujeres, no hay ninguna garantía de que este porcentaje se mantenga en futuras elecciones. Más grave aún es que la baja o nula presencia de mujeres en los Consejos Deliberantes municipales, que en muy pocos casos llegan cerca del 30% y en muchos otros casos no tienen ninguna mujer entre sus integrantes. La realidad política de Jujuy no se ha transformado ni siquiera luego de las pautas expresas dadas por la reforma a la Constitución Nacional en el año 1994. Una ley de cupo que no tome en serio este dato persiguiendo provocar una transformación real y efectiva en la composición de la Cámara, y por lo tanto, en la base de legitimidad democrática, implica cambiar algo, para nada se transforme. Este gatopardismo perjudica a las mujeres.

Luego de casi veinte años de interpretaciones de la Ley de Cupo nacional y de las leyes provinciales, no es posible volver sobre los pasos. No garantizar legalmente las condiciones más básicas para que las mujeres tengan por fin un derecho efectivo a participar en el ámbito público-político, es restar democracia. Jujuy tiene hoy la posibilidad de reparar históricas exclusiones, al garantizar a las mujeres la entrada a cargos electivos. Si se cree en la democracia como el mejor sistema de toma de decisiones, el cupo femenino tomado seriamente ayuda a mejorar su calidad y su alcance.

______________________________________

Notas relacionadas

viernes, 5 de noviembre de 2010

Arte y Libertad de Expresión: El Caso Ferrari

CLARIN, 28 de Diciembre de 2004

TRIBUNA

La democracia no desconfía de la libertad

Anoche se levantó la clausura a la muestra de Ferrari, que aún no reabre al público. El debate en torno a los valores continúa.

Roberto Saba. JURISTA

El debate en torno a la muestra de León Ferrari y su eventual cierre no es un tema menor. Permite reflexionar sobre uno de los de los mayores dilemas de una democracia liberal, poniéndola y poniéndonos a prueba.

La democracia liberal, en la que se funda nuestra Constitución, requiere de los ciudadanos el valor de enfrentar ciertos riesgos. Uno de ellos, quizá el más importante, lo constituye el de ser capaces de exponerse a expresiones que pueden no ser de nuestro agrado o, aún más, que pueden provocarnos el más absoluto de los rechazos.

La democracia también presupone tener confianza en la razón y la inteligencia de las personas para decidir libremente lo que es mejor para ellas individual y colectivamente. Es cierto que todos podemos "equivocarnos" al usar nuestra razón y nuestra libertad, pero esa posibilidad no justifica que se nos impida recurrir a ellas, como lo sostenía John Stuart Mill, el liberal por excelencia del siglo XIX, en su famosa defensa de la libertad de expresión en su clásico Sobre la libertad.

La libertad de expresión no es sólo un derecho individual de aquel que se expresa. También comprende el derecho de todos los demás a conocer esa expresión. En este sentido, Mill afirmaba que "si toda la humanidad, menos una persona, fuera de una misma opinión, y esta persona fuera de opinión contraria, la humanidad sería tan injusta impidiendo que hablase, como ella misma lo sería si teniendo poder bastante impidiera que hablara la humanidad. Si fuera la opinión una posesión personal que sólo tuviera valor para su dueño, si el impedir su disfrute fuera simplemente un perjuicio particular, habría alguna diferencia entre que el perjuicio se infligiera a pocas o a muchas personas. Pero la peculiaridad del mal que consiste en impedir la expresión de una opinión es que se comete un robo a la raza humana, a la posteridad tanto como a la generación actual, a aquellos que disienten de esa opinión, más todavía que a aquellos que participan en ella".

Si la expresión de censura fuera verdadera, sostenía este filósofo de actualidad permanente, al prohibirla nos privamos de ella. Si ella estuviera en un error, la verdad pierde la oportunidad de revigorizarse al ser contrastada con él. Lo único que justificaría la censura, entonces, sería el miedo a enfrentar la posibilidad de que estemos equivocados o la negación de que las personas pueden, por sí mismas, discriminar la verdad de aquello que no lo es. La censura necesita confiar en unos pocos que nos dirán al resto qué podemos y qué no podemos saber.

La libertad de expresión, además de ser un derecho individual del que se expresa, es también una precondición del sistema democrático. La protección de la expresión es el mecanismo por el cual nos aseguramos que ninguna idea quede fuera del debate público que precede a la decisión democrática del pueblo. La prohibición de una expresión empobrece el debate público, corre el riesgo de bloquear un potencial camino hacia la verdad y nos priva a todos de contar con mayor información para ejercer nuestra ciudadanía o desarrollarnos como persona autónomas.

Así lo entendió el Estado argentino cuando se obligó por medio de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos a respetar y hacer respetar el derecho a la libertad de expresión (artística, entre otras).

Owen Fiss, profesor de libertad de expresión de la Universidad de Yale, afirma que lo único que podría justificar imponer un límite a la libertad de expresión como precondición del debate democrático es que la expresión en cuestión provocara el "silenciamiento", por miedo, por ejemplo, de las expresiones de otros. La quema de una cruz por el Ku Klux Klan en un barrio de afroamericanos, o la manifestación de un grupo nazi son expresiones que muy probablemente no contarían con la protección del derecho por empobrecer eventualmente el debate público al provocar el silencio, quizá por miedo, de una minoría negra o judía. En un sentido similar se pronuncia la misma Convención Americana. Si, por el contrario, la expresión de una persona no tiene ninguna posibilidad de silenciar a una mayoría religiosa, nada parece justificar la prohibición de esa expresión.

Una vez que logramos establecer los alcances del derecho a expresarse, resta preguntarse si el Estado se encuentra facultado a invertir recursos públicos para posibilitar la expresión de algunos. Una vez más, no es posible resolver esta cuestión sin aclarar cuál es la razón por la que protegemos la expresión. Si la democracia, para poder arribar a mejores decisiones, requiere de un rico y robusto debate público, entonces es posible justificar que el Estado utilice sus recursos para permitir que voces menos oídas, minoritarias y diferentes a las de la mayoría alcancen a ser conocidas por la comunidad política.

El Estado utiliza una enorme cantidad de recursos para favorecer expresiones, incluso en ocasiones que quizá ni siquiera llamen nuestra atención: la asignación de becas de estudio o de investigación; la instalación de medios de comunicación; la distribución de subsidios a ONG o iglesias; o la puesta a disposición de las limitadas superficies de las paredes de sus museos y salas de exhibición. En este sentido, estaría constitucionalmente menos justificado asignar recursos (fondos o metros cuadrados) para que se expresen voces mayoritarias que para subsidiar expresiones menos conocidas.

Nuestra Constitución, los Tratados Internacionales de Derechos Humanos que hemos suscripto y la propia jurisprudencia de nuestra Corte Suprema hacen de Argentina un país que debería enorgullecerse por el lugar predominante que le reconoce a la libertad de expresión como uno de los pilares fundamentales de nuestra democracia.

Así lo ha reconocido en numerosas oportunidades la Relatoría Especial para la Libertad de Expresión de la OEA cuando se refiere al liderazgo de nuestro país en la región. No debemos temer al ejercicio de la libertad ni desconfiar de la posibilidad de que cada persona decida acerca de lo que es bueno para ella sin interferencias de terceros.

Arte y Libertad de Expresión

The New York Times

November 3, 2010

A Climate of Unease for Artists in Syria

Damascus, Syria

IN a leafy neighborhood of this city, where crumbling housing developments give way to gated embassies and idling BMWs, Janet Moore, a high-end travel agent from California, stopped one recent day into the cool, sleek quarters of the Ayyam Gallery on a scouting mission. She wanted to set up studio visits with “the hottest young artists in town,” she told Sharon Othman of the gallery. The plan was to organize a trip for a dozen or so contemporary art collectors, the sort, Ms. Moore said, who, on hearing that Syria is the Next Big Thing, would reach for their checkbooks and head straight for the airport, few questions asked.

“Syria is moving toward a very bright future,” Ms. Othman said, happy to accommodate.

This is one face of Syria now, the one that lately has been making the pages of glossy lifestyle magazines and art-world tip sheets. But just before the travel agent arrived, Ms. Othman had been saying that the gallery couldn’t publish some of its fancy catalogs here, because the nudes in them didn’t pass muster with Syria’s omnipresent censors.

That’s the other face of life here. A corrupt and oppressive regime still rules, and newfound economic prosperity for a well-connected class, while useful as propaganda, has only reinforced a deeper culture of political stagnation.

Stagnant social politics in this part of the world tend to preclude much of an artistic life. That’s the classic historical paradigm. Around here commercial globalization and the Web, having promised to erode the power of authoritarian regimes and foster new cultural riches, mostly have just concentrated more wealth in the hands of those close to power. And, aside from a proliferation of the usual chain stores, boutique hotels and restaurants that are today’s fashionable excuse for “worldly” culture, they have produced among Syrians only a climate of greater unease.

So say many Syrian artists and intellectuals, anyway. Syria’s economic role models used to be East Germany and North Korea. Now the model is China, never mind that Syria has 23 million people, and is about the size of North Dakota. But economic opportunity for the elite clearly hasn’t brought cultural liberalization to the many. If anything, Syrian artists, writers and intellectuals complain that liberties have been only further curtailed by a regime still trying to grasp the challenges of the Web. Every book, art catalog, film script and television program, big or small, still runs a gantlet of government censors. Fifty Syrians can’t congregate in public without getting official consent. When Bashar al-Assad took over as president in 2000, he ushered in a brief period of openness that came to be called the Damascus Spring. But those gains are long gone, and now, despite the influx of first-run Hollywood movies and the token appearance by a pioneering Western dancer or musician for the odd arts festival, the situation has gotten worse.

Why? Perhaps it’s partly a question of changed expectations. Under Mr. Assad’s father, President Hafez al-Assad, there were clear red lines of intolerance. Now those lines are no longer clear, increasing, not diminishing, the sense of uneasiness and tendency toward self-censorship. Rosa Yassin Hassan, a novelist, put it this way one recent morning: “Two people write about the same thing, and one is imprisoned today, the other not. That sends a message, I believe. It is done on purpose to increase fear and apprehension.”

Meanwhile the United States and Western Europe have been making quiet overtures toward Syria, hoping among other things to drive a wedge between it and Iran. Yet Syria has been pursuing its usual wily, paradoxical policies: cracking down on political Islamists at home, supporting movements like Hamas andHezbollah abroad, accepting new organizations that support women, children and the environment but not human-rights groups that might speak out against the regime. Even as officials allow a few poetry readings, where a small number of Syrians occasionally let off some steam by poking fun at the establishment, they have also drafted a law that would now force bloggers and other journalists to submit all writings for review before publication.

So what culture arises from this climate? For starters, a culture of small-bore opportunism. A young generation of Syrian entrepreneurs, weaned on the Internet and devoted to the global marketplace, has arisen in the last decade or so. They see fresh chances to make big bucks and show little appetite for political confrontation. During the 1960s, and then under Hafez al-Assad in the ’70s, Syria had its version of the youth movement. It survived partly because Syrian activist-artists steeped in Sartre shared with the country’s rulers a dream of pan-Arab prosperity. But today young Syrians, many of them freely admit, dream not about making waves but making money.

The painter Youssef Abdelke, 59, belongs to an older generation. He moved back here a few years ago, after living 28 years in a kind of self-imposed exile in Paris. His subjects tend to be still lifes, benign seeming at first: fish, birds and other animals, ambiguously dead or alive. “To be dead but to refuse to be dead,” was how he described them when we met in his studio here one evening.

Protest had been part of his upbringing, he recalled. His father had been imprisoned many times during the ’60s and ’70s, he said, and Mr. Abdelke himself, as a young member of the Communist Labor Party, spent nearly two years in prison during the late ’70s. Afterward he moved to France. But he returned in 2005, above all because he missed home and because he is, in the end, a Syrian artist.

“There’s a false image of openness now,” he contended with an openness that was striking but almost casual. “The authorities are still controlling everything, and you can’t even hire a cleaning woman without the security services’ permission. Today the world media knows when a dissident is jailed, which wasn’t the case when I was imprisoned. But this creates an impression that there’s less of a problem, when actually things are just as bad or worse. The market contributes to the problem.”

Syrian artists, exposed to a global audience, “now feel pressure” to cater to nouveau riche Arabs, among others, he said, and they’re less concerned about thorny issues of Syrian identity or Syrian politics.

Mouna Atassi, a veteran dealer whose gallery is one of the finest and most respected in Damascus, echoed that thought, lamenting how the Syrian art world “used to be small but tightly knit.”

“Artists here traded paintings, collectors knew the artists socially,” she said. “They were all middle class. Ambition back then had nothing to do with money. It had to do with ideas.” The last few years have witnessed “tremendous new interest from collectors in the Gulf and in the West and the arrival of big money shaping what people here make and sell,” Ms. Atassi continued. “But it’s all about money and the market now, about tourist consumption and a few rich Syrians.”

Chalk up those remarks by Mr. Abdelke and Ms. Atassi to nostalgia and romanticism. But Ousama Ghanam, a playwright in his 30s who teaches and directs theater here, although describing the situation differently, sounds hardly more optimistic. The problem for serious culture in Syria today, he said, is the lack of money, not the influx of it. He meant that most performing arts events here are still state sponsored. And while the government imposes few “red lines,” in terms of programming, Mr. Ghanam said, the regime naturally favors populist, uncontroversial fare. At the same Syria’s private benefactors, such as they are, so far don’t show much interest in, or just aren’t familiar with experimental theater, dance and film, and they want to back events that make money.

So they’re big on soap operas, perhaps the country’s major artistic export. Mr. Ghanam teaches Robert Wilson, among other modern Western authors and dramatists, to his Syrian students, but he said they graduate only to find that the jobs available as actors, directors and playwrights are all on the soaps. “This is the new reality,” Mr. Ghanam said. “So the soap operas and historical melodramas are creating taste.”

Of course that’s not the whole story. Rosa Yassin Hassan, the young novelist who spoke about the climate of unease, was in a hotel restaurant the other morning, scanning the room for unfriendly faces before settling down to an interview. She noted with resignation a table of aged government officials nearby.

Ms. Hassan has become outspoken here. Syrian censors, she recounted, originally agreed to publish “Ebony,” her first novel, but then excised passages they deemed sexually offensive. When she objected, a public firestorm ensued. Ms. Hassan decided to publish abroad. Her next book chronicled the lives of former female political prisoners. The book after that landed her on the shortlist for an Arabic version of the Booker Prize but stirred more condemnation, and today Ms. Hassan isn’t allowed travel outside the country.

“It’s complicated,” she said, about the situation, “because nowadays, with the Internet and satellite TV and translations from and to Arabic, writers in Syria are not isolated from the world. It is not like it was 30 years ago. We can publish elsewhere. There can be a public fuss. But in a sense this only makes the situation feel worse for younger writers because we can dream.”

The Syrian reading public, she went on, “has always been tiny, and intellectuals are isolated from the rest of society.” At the same time a young literary scene has developed, she insisted, publishing abroad, like herself, if necessary, and writing about issues like “social diversity, life among refugees and minorities, subjects that used to be unexplored.”

“It’s more about individual expression now, which to me is in the best long-term interest of culture as culture,” she said, adding that making art in Syria is “like dropping a pebble in still water.”

That happened to be the metaphor Hatem Ali also used. At 48, Mr. Ali is one of Syria’s most successful television and film directors. He has directed several of the country’s widely distributed historical soap operas, and he recently shot a feature film, “The Long Night,” about political prisoners. We met in his office suite here one morning, beneath a photograph of Mr. Ali standing beside President Assad.

The soaps bought him, as he put it, “immunity” to make “The Long Night.” He was able to muster $250,000 in private money, a meager budget. The film was then tacitly banned by Syrian authorities, who never gave permission for it to be shown here. “We got permission on paper from one committee to go ahead with the film, but then another government committee saw the film, and my own long night with the Syrian authorities started,” he said, shaking his head.

So why did he make it?

“Young Syrian directors who grew up with the success of Syrian dramas see television as where the money and opportunities are now, and they produce shows that long for a backward world and that hide in religion and the historical past, no matter how bad the past was,” he said.

I had seen what he meant just the previous night, wandering past a cafe where dozens of Syrians had gathered outdoors as usual to watch, on a big screen, “Bab al-Hara,” a hugely popular soap opera across the Arab world about life in Damascus at the turn of the last century. In it women gossip, men shoot guns and shout at one another. It’s what passes for popular culture — not worse than what passes for it in Rome or Red Hook, maybe, except that for Syrians the alternatives are few.

“It’s our job to raise our voices, a little bit,” Mr. Ali said, speaking about Syrian artists generally. “Movies don’t move people to revolution. But they’re part of a discourse, pebbles in a still lake.”

“I am not desperate yet,” he added. “But I am less hopeful.”

miércoles, 3 de noviembre de 2010

Corte Suprema de EEUU: Libertad de Expresión y Video Juegos

The New York Times

November 2, 2010

Justices Debate Video Game Ban

WASHINGTON — In a lively and sometimes testy Supreme Court argument on Tuesday over a law banning the sale of violent video games to minors, the justices struggled to define how the First Amendment should apply to a new medium.

They tried analogies — to books, films, cartoons, comic books, fairy tales and rap lyrics. They argued about what the drafters of the Bill of Rights would have made of an extremely violent game like Postal 2.

They worried about whether it made sense to extend, for the first time, principles allowing the government to regulate depictions of sex to depictions of violence. They considered conflicting studies on the effects of violent video games on young people.

And they expressed doubt about whether the law at issue, from California, drew sensible distinctions among the games it covered.

The law would impose $1,000 fines on stores that sell violent video games to people under 18. It defined violent games as those “in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being” in a way that is “patently offensive,” appeals to minors’ “deviant or morbid interests” and lacks “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”

“What’s a deviant violent video game?” asked Justice Antonin Scalia, who was the law’s most vocal opponent on Tuesday. “As opposed to what? A normal violent video game?”

“Some of the Grimm’s fairy tales are quite grim,” he added. “Are you going to ban them, too?”

Justice Stephen G. Breyer took the other side. He said common sense should allow the government to help parents protect children from games that include depictions of “gratuitous, painful, excruciating, torturing violence upon small children and women.”

In Ginsberg v. New York in 1968, the court did allow the government to regulate the distribution of sexual materials to minors that fell well short of obscenity, which is unprotected by the First Amendment.

Still, most of the justices seemed to agree that a ruling in favor of the California law would require a novel extension of First Amendment principles to expressions concerning violence.

In April, in United States v. Stevens, the court struck down a federal law making it a crime to sell videos of dogfights and other depictions of animal cruelty by an 8-to-1 vote, saying the court was not prepared to create a new category of speech outside the bounds of the First Amendment.

The court’s decision just days later to hear the video game case, Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association, No. 08-1448, was thus a surprise, particularly as lower courts have been unanimous in saying similar laws violated the First Amendment.

“How is this any different,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, “than what we said we don’t do in the First Amendment field in Stevens, where we said we don’t look at a category of speech and decide that some of it has low value?”

Zackery P. Morazzini, a lawyer for California, said the state should have flexibility in limiting speech where minors are involved.

The methodology of the Stevens decision, which left open the possibility that a more tightly drafted law might survive constitutional scrutiny, may provide the court with a template for its ruling on the California law.

But Justice Scalia said there was nothing in the tradition of American free speech that would allow the government to ban depictions of violence. The thought, he said, would have been foreign to the drafters of the First Amendment, drawing a needling comment from Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the lone dissenter in the Stevens case.

“What Justice Scalia wants to know,” Justice Alito said, “is what James Madison thought about video games.”

“No,” Justice Scalia responded, “I want to know what James Madison thought about violence.”

The California law was struck down by lower federal courts and has never come into effect. Justice Alito and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. were, along with Justice Breyer, the members of the court who seemed most inclined to try to find a way to uphold the law.

Paul M. Smith, a lawyer for the video game industry, faced a barrage of hostile questions from those three justices, who elicited from him the acknowledgment that there was nothing states could do to regulate the sale of, in Justice Alito’s words, “the most violent, sadistic, graphic video game that can be developed.”

Current First Amendment doctrine would not allow it, Mr. Smith said, and social science studies do not suggest that a law banning violent games would be good policy even if it passed constitutional muster.

“The existing solutions are perfectly capable of allowing this problem to be addressed,” Mr. Smith said, “assuming it is a problem.” Among those solutions, he said, were the industry’s own ratings, the cost of the games and the difficulty of playing them at home in secret.

Justice Elena Kagan, the court’s newest and youngest member, seemed to be the only justice with even a passing familiarity with the genre under review, even if it was secondhand.

“You think Mortal Kombat is prohibited by this statute?” she asked Mr. Morazzini. It is, she added, “an iconic game which I am sure half the clerks who work for us spent considerable time in their adolescence playing.”

Mr. Morazzini said the game was “a candidate” for government regulation.


jueves, 14 de octubre de 2010

Admision en Fuerzas Armadas en USA

The New York Times

October 13, 2010

Awaiting the Next Step on Policy on Gay Service

By JOHN SCHWARTZ

Each side of the controversy over the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law that restricts openly gay men and women from serving in the military waited on Wednesday for the Obama administration to reveal its next move in court.

Judge Virginia A. Phillips of Federal District Court issued a sweeping injunction on Tuesday that called on the military to stop enforcing the policy, and to “suspend and discontinue” any investigations or proceedings to dismiss service members under it.

While the Department of Justice is expected to appeal the decision, department officials would not confirm or deny that an appeal was on the way.

The administration has argued that Congress, not the courts, should change the law, because legislation could provide a more orderly process.

That point was telegraphed in comments delivered on Wednesday by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. In his first public statement since the judge’s ruling, he said changing the policy would have “enormous consequences.”

“I feel very strongly that this is an action that needs to be taken by the Congress, and that it is an action that requires careful preparation and a lot of training,” Mr. Gates said as he flew to Brussels for a meeting of NATO ministers.

He noted that the Pentagon was conducting a review of the policy, due in December. “Legislation should be informed by the review that we have under way,” he said.

Questions about President Obama’s response to the court ruling dominated the daily White House briefing with reporters on Wednesday. Mr. Obama has long opposed the policy, yet he now leads the government, which typically appeals to defend laws under challenge.

“The president strongly believes that this policy is unjust, that it is detrimental to our national security, and that it discriminates against those who are willing to die for their country,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary. “And the president strongly believes that it’s time for this policy to end.”

“The bottom line is this is a policy that is going to end,” Mr. Gibbs added. “It’s not whether it will end, but the process by which it will end.”

Opponents of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law anticipated an imminent filing of an appeal.

Robin McGehee, co-founder and director of GetEqual, a civil rights group in Washington for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, said such an action from the government would be “yet another shocking lack of leadership from the White House on issues of equality.”

If the government does appeal, it would probably ask higher courts to keep Judge Phillips’s injunction from taking effect during the appeals process, which could reach the United States Supreme Court.

That is a process that Log Cabin Republicans, the group that brought the suit, is willing to pursue, said Christian A. Berle, the group’s acting executive director.

The group “remains committed to defending this ruling and defending the rights of all service members — in the Ninth Circuit, and to the United States Supreme Court, if necessary.”

At the same time, he said, the group has also asked Congress to repeal the law.

“Log Cabin Republicans prefers whatever solution will end this policy the quickest,” he said.

Thom Shanker contributed reporting from Brussels, and Jackie Calmes from Washington.

viernes, 1 de octubre de 2010

Aborto y mortalidad de la mujer en Argentina y America Latina



Argentina: ¿Por qué hay tantas muertes por aborto?

La falta de anticonceptivos en uno de los problemas en Argentina.

Según los expertos, en Argentina falta educación sexual y acceso a los anticonceptivos.

El 11% de las mujeres latinoamericanas que mueren por causas relacionadas al embarazo fallecen como consecuencia de un aborto clandestino. En Argentina esa cifra es más del doble: el 25% de la mortalidad materna es atribuida a las interrupciones mal realizadas.

Los únicos otros dos países de la región donde los abortos son la principal causa de muerte materna son Jamaica y Trinidad y Tobago.

Sin embargo, a diferencia de lo que ocurre en estas naciones, el problema en el país sudamericano no puede atribuirse a falta de recursos.

De hecho, Argentina gasta más en salud por habitante que algunos de sus vecinos, como Chile y Uruguay, a pesar de lo cual estos dos países tienen menos de la mitad de los índices de mortalidad materna que la nación más grande.

Mientras que Argentina registró en 2008 cuatro muertes cada 10.000 niños nacidos, en Chile la cifra fue de 1,8 fallecimientos y en Uruguay de 0,9.

También la cantidad de mortalidad materna atribuida al aborto es mucho menor: 4% del total en el país transandino (según datos de 2003) y 0% en Uruguay (en 2008, cuando se registraron sólo cuatro casos de muerte materna, ninguno por aborto).

¿Por qué las diferencias?

Según Mariana Romero, una médica especializada en salud reproductiva que trabaja para el Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad (CEDES), en Argentina faltan políticas públicas sobre este tema.

CIFRAS COMPARADAS

Mortalidad materna por abortos mal realizados:

  • Argentina 25%
  • Chile: 4%
  • Uruguay: 0%

Por eso, CEDES, junto con el Centro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales y el Instituto de Investigaciones Epidemiológicas de la Academia Nacional de Medicina de Buenos Aires lanzó recientemente el Observatorio de Salud Sexual y Reproductiva (OSSyR), con la intención de incentivar el debate social.

Para Romero, que forma parte del OSSyR, uno de los principales problemas es la falta de una política de prevención.

"No hay educación sexual y no hay acceso a anticonceptivos", dijo a BBC Mundo, explicando que evitar los embarazos no deseados sería la mejor forma de evitar la muerte de mujeres por abortos mal hechos.

La experta atribuye la falta de políticas a la "juventud" del sistema de salud pública en Argentina.

"Mientras que Chile empezó a aplicar programas de planificación familiar en los años sesenta, en Argentina recién se implementó un Programa Nacional de Salud Sexual y Procreación Responsable en 2003", señaló.

Otros problemas

Otra causa del alto número de muertes maternas en Argentina es la deficiencia del sistema sanitario.

"A pesar de que Argentina tiene una red sanitaria extendida, el país no cuenta con un sistema eficiente ya que muchos de los centros de salud son de mala calidad, por falta de capacitación o por la ausencia de insumos", afirmó Romero.

Cuando una mujer llega a un hospital con complicaciones por haberse realizado un aborto, muchas veces es tratada mal, por una cuestión de estigma.

Mariana Romero, especialista en salud reproductiva del Cento de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad de Argentina

La muerte de mujeres embarazadas en hospitales es a veces consecuencia de un problema cultural.

"Cuando una mujer llega a un hospital con complicaciones por haberse realizado un aborto, muchas veces es tratada mal, por una cuestión de estigma", aseguró la especialista.

Para Romero, también es importante que los centros de salud cumplan con lo que dicta la ley, ya que si bien el Código Penal de Argentina contempla la violación como una causal para permitir un aborto, muchos médicos se rehúsan a realizar el procedimiento, obligando a las víctimas a realizarse un aborto clandestino.

Una portavoz del Ministerio de Salud dijo a BBC Mundo que a fines de mayo la cartera lanzó una línea telefónica gratuita para responder consultas sobre salud sexual y reproductiva, algo que -según las autoridades- ayudaría a reducir los estigmas y a prevenir los embarazos no deseados.

domingo, 29 de agosto de 2010

Rwanda, otra vez...

The New Yorker

August 27, 2010

RWANDA PUSHES BACK AGAINST U.N. GENOCIDE CHARGES

Posted by Philip Gourevitch

A draft report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights arguing that the Rwandan military may have committed genocide in Congo in the late nineteen-nineties has been leaked to the press. Le Monde had the first item on the report yesterday; the Guardian and the Christian Science Monitor had the longest ones. The U.N. has so far refused to comment on the leak, except to say that the draft is not the final version of the report. The Rwandan government has rejected the report, but not said much more.

But earlier this month in Kigali, top Rwandan officials spoke freely and on the record about their efforts to have the draft report quashed. Rwanda’s President, Paul Kagame, came to power in 1994 at the head of a rebel army that brought the extermination of Rwandan Tutsis by Hutu extremists to a halt. This army today is the chief contributor of troops to the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Darfur—and last month, after Rwanda received the draft report, Kagame met with the U.N. Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, in Madrid, and told him that if the report came out, Rwanda would withdraw from all of its commitments to the U.N., starting with Darfur.

“I was in the meeting,” Louise Mushikiwabo, Rwanda’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, told me in Kigali a few weeks ago. Mushikiwabo followed up with Ban by letter (pdf), elaborating her government’s complaint and reiterating its threat.

In our conversation, she insisted that Rwanda wasn’t bluffing. She described the draft report as a disgrace, methodologically and politically, and she told me, “If it is endorsed by the U.N. and it’s ever published, we used very, very strong words—if the U.N. releases it as a U.N. report, the moment it’s released, the next day all our troops are coming home. Not just Darfur, all the five countries where we have police”—she mentioned Haiti, Liberia, and South Sudan—“everybody’s coming home.”

The draft report, which is five hundred and forty-five pages long, describes itself as an attempt to catalog the major atrocities committed by all parties in the tangle of wars that wracked Congo (formerly known as Zaire) between 1993 and 2003. The report states that tens of thousands of people were killed during that decade—a number far lower than normally cited by international humanitarian and human-rights groups and the press, which routinely speak of hundreds of thousands, even millions, killed in a shorter period of time.

The report uses a subtler, more legal conception of genocide than the one usually found in the press or in the public understanding. In the Rwandan genocide of 1994, for instance, Hutu extremists set out to exterminate the Tutsi minority, and close to a million were killed in a hundred days. But in international law, the crime of genocide is defined as an attempt to destroy a targeted group “in whole or in part.” By focussing on the question of intent and the concept of partial destruction, the draft U.N. report concludes that the accounts it collected of Rwandan forces and their local allies massacring thousands of Rwandan and Congolese Hutus at a time—even as they were organizing the repatriation of hundreds of thousands of other Rwandan Hutus—“reveal a number of damning elements that, if they were proven before a competent court, could be classified as crimes of genocide.”

Importantly, but less dramatically, the draft report also states that its findings do not meet the investigative or evidentiary standards that would be required in such a competent court to prove such crimes. The size of the report suggests extraordinary documentary thoroughness, but in a “background note” the U.N. Human Rights Commission explains that it required no more than two accounts from self-described witnesses to an incident for it to be included in its findings. This is a minimum standard in journalism, but beyond minimalist in international law—and by the background note’s math there rarely were more than two witnesses per allegation. It says: “The content of the report itself is based on the analysis of more than 1500 documents, interviews with about 1280 witnesses in relation to the 617 cases in the database specifically designed for the Project, and consultation with approximately 200 local and international N.G.O.s.” None of these sources are identified by name, nor are its authors. The U.N.’s own investigative team consisted of thirty-three people, only half of whom worked, for half a year, in the provinces where the crimes were committed.

So, at least on first glance, it is difficult to see how this report, which offers little in the way of detail connecting individually identified perpetrators and individually identified victims, could lead to any trials. But that is not likely to matter much in the court of international opinion. The atrocities the report describes are ghastly, their cumulative effect is crushing, and the allegation of genocide, particularly coming from the usually namby-pamby United Nations, is sensational.

Mushikiwabo, the Rwandan foreign minister, scoffed at the U.N. Human Rights Commission’s claim that the purpose of the report is to help the Congolese come to terms with their past. “Give me a break,” she said. “This is a report that is accusing Rwanda of genocide.” The report also attributes blame for killings, rapes, and other horrors in Congo to Congolese factions (including elements in the current government of Congolese President Joseph Kabila), as well as to Angolans, Ugandans, Zimbabweans, Burundians, fugitive Rwandan Hutu genocidaires, and a number of other armed groups. But, as far as Mushikiwabo was concerned, none of that would matter beside the accusation of genocide against Rwanda—and on this point, at least, the Rwandan government and its stiffest critics agree.

The “new” U.N. draft report was actually finished at least a year ago, and its existence has been an open secret for a long time. In January, Anneke van Woudenberg, the top Human Rights Watch researcher on Congo, told me that the report would accuse Rwanda of genocide. Politically, van Woudenberg said, the report would be a “bombshell” for Rwanda. And, speaking of politics, she also told me that the former U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, had been a chief sponsor of the report. “It was one of the last things Kofi Annan did before leaving office,” she said, “which was to ensure that the financing was in place for this study to take place and to happen.” Given that Annan’s reputation had been irreparably damaged by his gross mishandling of the Rwandan genocide and its aftermath in Congo, his interest in blaming others is hardly surprising.

(Strikingly, the leak of the U.N. report comes the same week as news flashes that Rwandan Hutu rebels in Congo—a group, currently known by the acronym F.D.L.R., that has been visiting slaughter, rape, and pillage on the Congolese non-stop for the past sixteen years—systematically gang-raped close to two hundred women, men, and small children in an eastern Congo town a few weeks ago, while U.N. peacekeepers nearby steered clear.)

In her letter to Ban, Mushikiwabo argues that the U.N.’s own record gives it no standing to accuse the Kagame government of genocide. If the U.N. is so interested in crimes against humanity in Congo, she writes, the Secretary-General should remember the largely hushed-up scandals implicating U.N. peacekeepers in serial sex crimes against the civilians they were supposed to be protecting. These arguments won’t persuade anybody in the human-rights movement, which insists that it is apolitical in its pursuit of justice.

But justice is always selective, and a report like this is, of course, a political thing—and what’s puzzling is that the Rwandans seemed unaware that it was in the works until last month. This past spring in Kigali, everyone I asked in top military or intelligence circles said they’d never heard of such a project. When they got hold of it last month, these same officials clearly felt ambushed by the U.N., with which, despite the anguished past, it had established a close working relationship. When Kagame met with Ban in Madrid, he was there as the co-chair of the Millennium Development Goals Advocacy Group, an appointment made in recognition of Rwanda’s remarkable development under his leadership.

In her letter to the Secretary-General, Mushikiwabo went so far as to say that Rwanda would quit its U.N. commitments even if the draft of the report leaked to the press. After all, she told me, “If you’re going to accuse our army of being a genocidaire army, don’t use us for peacekeeping.”

At that time, two weeks ago, Mushikiwabo said it was up to the Secretary-General to decide what to do about the report. Now that it has been leaked, it will be up to Rwanda as well.

UPDATE: This morning, U.N. headquarters in New York declared that it was “absolutely untrue” that Rwanda had ever threatened to pull out of Darfur on account of the Congo report. The U.N. spokesman said it was also out of absolute concern for the truth that the final report has not yet been released.

Mas aca